Good morning Jeremy,
Excellent work!
> # Terminal States / Thresholds
>
> When a counter reaches the Nth state, it represents a certain amount
> of accumulated work over a period where progress was agreed on for
> some outcome.
>
> There should be some viable state transition at this point.
>
> One solution would be to have the money at this point sent to an
> `OP_TRUE` output, which the miner incrementing that state is
> responsible for following the rules of the spookchain.
This is not quite Drivechain, as Drivechains precommit to the final state
transition when the counter reaches threshold and mainchain-level rules prevent
the miner who does the final increment from "swerving the car" to a different
output, whereas use of `OP_TRUE` would not prevent this; the Spookchain could
vote for one transition, and then the lucky last miner can output a different
one, and only other miners interested in the sidechain would reject them
(whereas in the Drivechain case, even nodes that do not care about the
sidechain would reject).
Still, it does come awfully close, and the "ultimate threat" ("nuclear option")
in Drivechains is always that everyone upgrades sidechain rules to mainchain
rules, which would still work for Spookchains.
Not sure how comfortable Drivechain proponents would be with this, though.
(But given the demonstrated difficulty in getting consensus changes for the
blockchain, I wonder if this nuclear option is even a viable threat)
> Or, it could be
> specified to be some administrator key / federation for convenience,
> with a N block timeout that degrades it to fewer signers (eventually
> 0) if the federation is dead to allow recovery.
Seems similar to the Blockstream separation of the block-signing functionaries
from the money-keeping functionaries.
Regards,
ZmnSCPxj
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
